2018-TIOL-819-CESTAT-DEL

Amco Sales Vs CCE

CX - Assessee engaged in manufacture of evaporating air cooler - During search of premises, visiting officers seized the stock of evaporative coolers found in factory and godown premises - Adjudicating authority has sustained the charge of clandestine clearance made in SCN even though the assessee made plea before him for cross-examination of various witness whose statements have been relied the case - He also did not permit the examination of many defence witness - The fact that cross-examination of witnesses sought by assessee has been denied is a serious breach of the Principles of Natural Justice - The Section 9D of CEA, 1944 lays down the conditions for a statement made by a person before any Central Excise Officer during course of inquiry to be admitted as evidence - Hence, it is required for departmental adjudicating authorities to first admit the statements in evidence in accordance in procedure prescribed in Section 9D before the same can be used against asseesse even in departmental proceedings - Same view has been followed by High Court in several other cases including case of G Tech 2016-TIOL-2749-HC-P&H-CX - By following the categorical pronouncement of High Court, impugned order merits to be set aside and remanded to original adjudicating authority for complying with the mandate of Section 9D of the Act before passing orders in de novo proceedings: CESTAT - Matter remanded: DELHI CESTAT

2018-TIOL-818-CESTAT-DEL

Mangal Electrical Industry Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & ST

CX - M/s MEIPL engaged in manufacture of CRGO Electrical Steel and also undertake the processing of raw material received from their customers - Shri Rajendra Kumar Jain, the appellant No. 2 is authorized signatory of M/s MEIPL - M/s MEIPL vide its letter had informed the Jurisdictional Range Superintendent that against job work challan, it had received CRGO Electrical Steel Coils from appellant No. 3 for purpose of slitting - However, authorities below have not taken cognigence of such letter addressed by Appellant No. 1 - Since adequate evidence regarding job work activity and payment of duty on final product were produced by appellant No. 1, same cannot be discarded and adjudged demands cannot be confirmed against it - Thus, impugned order confirming the duty liability and imposing penalties against appellant No. 1 is set aside - Since there is no clandestine removal of goods from factory of appellant No. 1, personal penalty imposed on appellant No. 2 under Rule 26 of CER, 2002 cannot be sustained - Since the appellant No. 1, who was the job worker for appellant No. 3 has confirmed that it had received the goods and used for slitting purpose, it cannot be said that non-fulfilment of the conditions of Notfn 52/2003-CUS. is attributable to fraud, collusion, separation of facts, with intent to evade payments of duty - In this case, since the appellant No. 3 had deposited the duty foregone on account of import of goods and also deposited the appropriate interest, benefit of Section 28 (2B) ibid should be available, for non-imposition of penalty: CESTAT - Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT

CUSTOMS SECTION

dgft_trade_notice_25_2017

Launch of e-MPS-facility to make online payment for miscellaneous applications.

CASE LAWS

DV Kishore Vs PR CC

Cus - Petitioner seeks for a direction upon the respondents to consider their application and refund a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-, which was pre-deposited by petitioner with interest pursuant to the orders passed by Division Bench of this Court dated 28.03.2017 - The second respondent by a note addressed to Assistant Commissioner has stated that details sought for are not readily available and second respondent needs some time to construct the bundle - Hence, adjournment by thirty(30) days is sought for - In any event, petitioner has handed over one full set of papers to the revenue, which shall be passed on to 2nd respondent, so as to enable him to reconstruct the file - Since the amount was received by Department, pursuant to orders passed by Division Bench of this Court, it cannot be treated as an amount to be paid but it is only an amount, which has been deposited pursuant to the interim orders granted by this Court and such deposit will abide by final order passed in said matter - Therefore, petitioner is entitled for refund of amount of Rs.3,00,000/- along with interest: HC - Writ petition allowed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

Vishal Impex Vs CC&CE

Cus - Assessee had filed shipping bills for export of dyed and printed fabrics made out of 100% Polyester Filament Yarn/Texturised Yarn - It appeared to department that assessee had misdeclared the value by over-invoicing in order to get higher ineligible Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) benefit in contravention of Section 14 (1), Section 50 of Customs Act and the provision of FTP 2004-2009 relating to DEPB scheme - Major grievance of assessee concerns the method of which CIU report for Present Market Value (PMV) of export goods was determined and its veracity - They also contest the charge of over-valuation of export goods on various grounds - They are also aggrieved that in de novo proceedings, adjudicating authority has imposed a much higher penalty than what was imposed in first round of adjudication - On the dispute concerning CIU report, on reasonable belief of overvaluation, representative samples had been drawn from cargo pertaining to all 13 shipping bills, which were sent to CIU Coimbatore for ascertaining the PMV in accordance with Board Circular No. 56/2002 -Cus. - It emerges that assessee had not initially been given a copy of CIU report and they had to obtain the same after they made RTI application - Assessee contends that out of three reports, two reports do not bear address and identity of person from whom the report was taken and third report indicates only the address without identity of person - Tribunal is unable to find any reasoned and in-depth analysis of contentions of assessee nor is there any adequate discussion and reasoning while upholding the allegations against assessee - Impugned order indeed suffers from lack of application, non-cognizance of submissions made by assessee and peremptory dismissal of such contentions without any detailed reasoning - Tribunal is also unable to fathom how in de novo adjudication, adjudicating authority has summarily increased the penalty under Section 114 ibid from Rs.17.50 lakhs imposed in first round of adjudication to Rs.50 lakhs, without giving any justification or raison de'tre for such enhancement: CESTAT - Matter remanded: CHENNAI CESTAT